Yup....I'm using that Beta against my 76.04 server without issue :)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > We are still on 7.6.04 SP3 though – they intend to go to the later patch > as its recommended. > > > > Is it backward compatible with 7.6.04 if I download the version meant for > 8.1? > > > > Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LJ LongWing > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:27 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Information on some miscellaneous, hidden or out of view > fields found in COM:Company.. > > > > ** > > I would personally download from > *Latest Beta Versions* > > Check out the What's New <http://arinside.com/wiki/ARInsideWhatsNew310> > section, > to find out more informations about the changes in the recent beta version. > > *Description* > > *ARAPI used* > > *supported server version* > > *Recommended* > > ARInside-3.1.0-beta-win32 <http://arinside.org/downloads/37> > > 8.1 > > 6.3 - 8.1 > > Yes > > ARInside-3.1.0-beta-win64 <http://arinside.org/downloads/36> > > 8.1 > > 6.3 - 8.1 > > > > > > and I use the 64 bit version here at work....I wouldn't expect it to work > better or worse, just more memory allocation :)...which isn't really needed. > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** > > This may be a silly question. This is the *Latest Downloads* table I > copied from the web page. > > > > *Description* > > *ARAPI used* > > *supported server version* > > *Recommended* > > ARInside-3.0.3-win32-binary <http://arinside.org/downloads/32> > > 7.6 > > 6.3 - 7.6 > > Yes > > ARInside-3.0.3-win64-binary <http://arinside.org/downloads/31> > > 7.6 > > 6.3 - 7.6 > > > > ARInside-3.0.3-solaris10sparc-binary <http://arinside.org/downloads/34> > > 7.6 > > 6.3 - 7.6 > > > > ARInside-3.0.3-linux-binary <http://arinside.org/downloads/35> > > 7.6 > > 6.3 - 7.6 > > > > ARInside-3.0.3-source-code <http://arinside.org/downloads/33> > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean it is recommended to use the 32 bit windows version over > the 64? What may go wrong with the 64 if I selected that? I’m on a 64 bit > Windows 7 Home Edition on my personal laptop that I would be using. > > > > Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LJ LongWing > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:49 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Information on some miscellaneous, hidden or out of view > fields found in COM:Company.. > > > > ** > > Well, there's no time like the present to download a new copy :) > > > > http://arinside.com/ > > > > Check out the beta, new features, and no current problems reported :) > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** > > I do not actually have that tool anymore – I used to have it during the > 6.3 days J for some documentation work that I needed to do. > > > > Mark Brittain, who is currently working with the client I’m with on this > engagement, made a mention of AR Utilities yesterday. I think he does have > it so will ask him if he can. > > > > Meanwhile, I was thinking of enabling Object Relationships at some point > later, as it has not yet been on development here. But since it’s a one > time high cost operation, have not got down to getting permission to get it > done – mostly because I have not started with any real development work yet. > > > > I’m suspecting all of these fields with the exception of Company ID, are > fields that were created either as a part of a copy paste operation and > intended to be deleted later, but never were.. There is even a *z1D > Company Type* field on there that is optional when it probably should > have been a display only field. I won’t swear it should have been a Display > Only field though as I have not checked its underlying workflow as well.. > > > > Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LJ LongWing > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:16 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Information on some miscellaneous, hidden or out of view > fields found in COM:Company.. > > > > ** > > Does an ARInside of those fields show anything interesting? > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** > > There are some fields found in COM:Company, either found in the > Miscellaneous tab, or hidden or both, or out of all views, that I would > like to know if they served any real functional purpose in ITSM. > > > > *Company ID** – Field ID 260000032* > > This is an indexed field so may probably be used in some of the searches > in workflow. Is it used for anything other than a manual search for a > company name by its ID? We do use it internally here for reporting and > other things but wanted to know the application specific purpose of it if > there is. > > > > *Lead Time (Days)** – Field ID 260000013* > > Really??? Lead time for what? I could understand if it was a part of an > asset – where you can have lead time for delivery or installation or both.. > But for a company? I’m guessing its one of those fields that may have crept > in as a part of a copy paste operation while creating fields for the > COM:Company form and remained there as a ghost field and then got hidden. > Or does it have a real purpose? And if so what is it? > > > > *Navigation Menu04** – Field ID 1000004045* > > This field is out of all views. It looks like it was intended to be the 4 > th tier on the navigational menus for companies. Is this actually > functional if populated? From the field ID it was probably not even created > at the same time as the other 3 related fields, as those field ID’s are > sequential but this one is out of sequence.. > > > > *Company Web ID** – Field ID 1000001799* > > What is this supposed to contain? It’s a hidden field, optional. Does it > serve any kind of a purpose? > > > > *Parent Company** – Field ID 303604300* > > This field is out of all views. While it’s fairly obvious what it can be > used for, does it serve any functional purpose in ITSM at all? Or is it > just one of those extra pieces of information that you could load if you > want. It is probably not a part of any searches as it does not feature in > any of the indexes built, and if it is, then that search may not be a very > efficient search... > > > > *Manufacturer Data Status** – Field ID 420000497* > > This is a hidden selection field having 6 values – New, Processed, Delete, > Update, Invalid, Inactive. This appears to be a field that might have been > mistakenly copied from the foundation load data forms?? > > > > *Manufacturer Creator** – Field ID 420000498* > > Again a hidden field. Possibly copied on this form again by error from the > load form? > > > > *Manufacturer Source Dataset** – Field ID 420000499* > > Hidden field again – maybe a part of the load form and should not have > been here? > > > > Are any of these fields apart from Company ID useful? Or do they serve no > purpose at all and should not have been there to begin with? > > > > Joe > > > > PS: By the way none of these feature in the data load form.. > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
